Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 549 (RAJ)

Vanna Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2004-04-09

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand bearing Sessions Case No. 69/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated October 5, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 306 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. It is the prosecution case that on September 2, 2000 informant Tej Singh Rawat (PW 2) lodged FIR (Ex.P-2) with the Police Station Diver that his grand daughter Jashoda who got married to appellant some twelve years ago, was murdered by the appellant and her dead body was thrown into well. Prior to this report Mohan Singh (DW. 1) instituted oral report on September 1, 2000 with the said Police Station, to the effect that Jashoda, the wife of his brother Vanna Singh, had been drowned in a well. On the basis of said report proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated, but after registration of FIR (Ex.P-2), the Police Station Diver proceeded to investigate the case under Section 306 IPC. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand. Charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eight witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the appellant claimed innocence and stated that he along with his wife had gone in Satsang and she came back with the ladies thereafter what transpired he did not know. One witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the record. 4. Dr. Jitendra Vyas (PW. 1) performed autopsy on the dead body of Jashoda and as per post mortem report (Ex.P-1) cause of her death was Asphyxia. No external or internal injury was found on the dead body. 5. In order to establish the charge under Section 306 IPC the prosecution examined Tej Singh Rawat (P W.2) who is grand father of the deceased. 1) performed autopsy on the dead body of Jashoda and as per post mortem report (Ex.P-1) cause of her death was Asphyxia. No external or internal injury was found on the dead body. 5. In order to establish the charge under Section 306 IPC the prosecution examined Tej Singh Rawat (P W.2) who is grand father of the deceased. In his deposition Tej Singh stated that some twenty five days prior to the incident Jashoda visited him and told him that appellant used to consume liquor and beat her. On the evening of first September, Mohan Singh came and told him that the appellant had killed Jashoda and thrown her body into well. Smt. Nandu @ Naina Devi (PW.3), who is the mother of deceased, deposed that just after entering into marriage the appellant started beating Jashoda. The appellant used to drink and beat Jashoda. Sher Singh (PW.4), uncle of the deceased also corroborated the statements of Tej Singh and Smt. Nandu. No witness from neighborhood of the deceased was examined by the prosecution. Mohan Singh (PW. 1) on the other hand deposed that the appellant and Jashoda used to live happily. On August 30,2000 Satsang of Baba Ram Dev was organised in his village. The appellant and Jashoda together attended Satsang and Jashoda came back with the ladies of village. On August 31,2000 missing report about Jashoda was lodged by the appellant with the Police. 6. Section 306 IPC creates a special offence applicable only to the abetment of suicide when the suicide is committed. The offence of 'abetment' must conform to the definition of that term as given in Section 107 that is to say, there must be instigation, cooperation or intentional assistance given to the would be suicide. It is not necessary that the suicide should have been committed in consequence of the abetment but in order to render a person liable as an abettor, it is necessary that the abettor should be something more than a mute spectator (Spectator hand particles). 7. The conduct of the appellant as disclosed by the Statement of Tej Singh, Smt. Nandu and Sher Singh is wholly consistent with the innocence. There was neither any intention nor any positive act on the part of the appellant to instigate Jashoda or aid her in committing suicide. 7. The conduct of the appellant as disclosed by the Statement of Tej Singh, Smt. Nandu and Sher Singh is wholly consistent with the innocence. There was neither any intention nor any positive act on the part of the appellant to instigate Jashoda or aid her in committing suicide. Though the appellant used to harass the deceased and cause her mental agony, there is no evidence that just before her death there was harassment by the appellant to the deceased. In the absence of such an evidence it can not be said that the appellant had abetted the death of the deceased. Learned trial Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 306 IPC. 8. For these reasons, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated October 5, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand. I acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 306 IPC. The appellant, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith , if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******